Summer Movies 2001 (Part 2)
(06/21/01)
Quite frequently summer movies repeat themselves and make for an extraordinarily derivative season; anyone else remember the tiresome predominance of killer-space-rock-and-volcanic-eruption disaster movies we had circa 1998? But one of the things making the summer 2001 movie season so interesting is the even-more-vast-than-usual assortment of films out there. Here I bring you reviews of four very different movies (a big-budget action flick, an animated feature, a science fiction comedy, and a good old-fashioned musical), all with their own merits and flaws, but all worth seeing if you get the chance.
First
we have “Tomb Raider,” which is probably the highest-profile movie to
open in the past few weeks. Based on
the wildly popular video game series of the same name, its heroine is the
babe-a-licious Lara Croft (Angelina Jolie), a British aristocrat turned
archeological mercenary. Her first (and
doubtless not her last) big-screen adventure kicks off when she discovers a
mysterious clock left behind by her late father (Jon Voight, Jolie’s real-life
father). The clock and other clues tell
Lara of two pieces of an ancient artifact with the power to control time. Lara must recover the two pieces before they
fall into the hands of the Illuminati (yes, THAT secret society bent on world
domination) and, more specifically, her longtime nemesis. The next 90 minutes blow by in a breathless
series of continent-hopping set pieces in such exotic locales as Cambodia and
Iceland.
Okay,
so it’s your typical action flick. But “Tomb
Raider” is also a great popcorn movie in the Indiana Jones/James Bond tradition. The meat and potatoes of this kind of movie are
the visuals and action sequences; the former is spectacular, particularly the
Cambodian and Icelandic temples, and the latter is always good and sometimes
great (such as the scene in which evil commandos invade Lara’s home and she whales
on them using little more than a bungee cord and various household items). Speaking of Lara, if there were an Oscar for
casting, this movie would receive it; it may not be a compliment, but Angelina
Jolie was BORN to play this role, to the point where the resemblance is kind of
frightening.
The
biggest problem with “Tomb Raider,” however, is its failure to rise above the
conventions of the genre and distinguish itself from its brethren. It takes itself and its overly convoluted
plot far too seriously to reach the relative heights attained by, say, the
first “The Mummy.” And what is up with the inclusion of
the Illuminati? Why not invent your own
secret society instead of ripping off one that’s already been done to
death? As it was, the end of this movie
made them seem like a bunch of wusses as well as making me want to stand up on
my chair every time one of them talked and yell “Fnord!” between their
words. (Oops, sorry, gamer joke.) Anyway, “Tomb Raider” is a decent enough
action movie that’s worth the price of a matinee, if you go for that sort of
thing. The Verdict: For those of you
who are too lazy to play the video game.
3 out of 5.
As
a huge fan of animation in all its many forms but no devotee of Disney, I
nonetheless felt the need to see the Mouse House’s latest offering, “Atlantis:
The Lost Empire.” My reason for
wanting to see this movie in the first place was very simple: the promise of no
songs, and no talking animal sidekicks.
Could Disney pull off such a departure from their profitable
formula? The answer is, mostly.
Set
in 1914, “Atlantis” follows the adventures of Milo Thatch (voiced very nicely by
Michael J. Fox), a nerdy janitor at the British Museum who dreams of chasing
his grandfather’s dream and searching for the lost continent of Atlantis. All his efforts are fruitless until he meets
his grandfather’s wealthy friend, who gives Milo some crucial information about
the continent’s location and agrees to fund an expedition to settle an old
bet. After assembling a crack
multicultural team of scientists and explorers, Milo discovers a thriving
civilization at the bottom of the ocean.
With the help of an Atlantean love interest, Kida, Milo must keep a
greedy, traitorous faction of his own team from destorying what’s left of
Atlantis.
“Atlantis”
marks a new milestone for Disney’s hand-drawn animation. Like the excellent “Titan A.E.” before
it, it takes a cue from Japanese anime with its stylized character designs,
bold, rich colors, and superbly dramatic action sequences. The mechanical design is also superb, giving
us some gorgeous steampunk vehicular eye candy. It’s such a treat to look at, I could almost, but not quite,
ignore the problems which keep “Atlantis” from being as great as it could have
been. The most grating is that there
are far too many characters, which complicate matters far more than need
be. Plus, the enforced muliculturalism
just doesn’t ring true; while it’s nice to see Disney including black and
Hispanic characters at long last, it’s not very realistic considering the time
frame, and why do all those peripheral extras have to be there at all? The plot often makes up for it, but the twists
and turns are remarkably predictable, and the romantic subplot is ripped
directly from “The Little Mermaid.”
Still, “Atlantis” is visually beautiful and right more often than it is
wrong; fans of animation and/or steampunk should definitely check this one
out. The Verdict: Is this a permanent
change for Disney? I doubt it, but it’s
fun while it lasts. 3.5 out of 5.
What
would summer be without a dumb comedy or two?
“Evolution” fits that bill for me. Directed by Ivan Reitman of “Ghostbusters” fame, “Evolution”
follows a rather similar story. When a
meteor crashes in the Arizona desert, community college science professors Ira
Kane (David Duchovny, occasionally parodying his famous “X-Files” role to good
effect) and Harry Block (Orlando Jones) are sent out to investigate. The meteor contains an alien ooze which
rapidly evolves into a variety of nasty creatures which threaten to take over
the world. With the help of a doofy
wanna-be fireman (Seann William Scott) and a clumsy CDC director/love interest
(Julianne Moore, being given very little to do), our heroes must save the day.
“Evolution”
is very much a “Ghostbusters” clone: nerdy heroes, cool special effects, an
unconventional way of defeating the monster, and search-and-destroy sequences
which are the highlight of the movie. One
scene in particular, in which our heroes track a giant killer alien bird
through a department store, strikes the perfect balance between humor and
excitement. But “Ghostbusters” is also
one of my favorite comedies, and I like this movie for the very reason that it’s
so reminiscent of a classic (at least in my mind). “Evolution” is also a very, very stupid movie. I mean that in the best possible way. The humor is uneven and usually rather
lowbrow, but if you can get past that you’ll find a rather enjoyable movie which
should be watched with lots of popcorn, lots of friends, and absolutely no
desire to see anything earthshakingly great.
The Verdict: My favorite line: “There’s always time for
lubricant!” (You have to see it, I
guess…) 3 out of 5.
Finally,
we arrive at the critically acclaimed, much-hyped musical tragedy “Moulin
Rouge.” Set in Paris in 1900, it’s
the tale of Christian, an English writer (Ewan McGregor), who falls in love
with Satine (Nicole Kidman), a courtesan and dancer at Paris’ most cutting-edge
club, the Moulin Rouge. Christian is
writing the play (which parallels the movie’s tale a la Hamlet) which
will make Satine into the legitimate actress she’s always dreamed of
being. But in exchange for funding the
production, the evil Duke wants Satine’s hand in marriage. What no one finds out until too late is that
Satine is dying of consumption, which leads the love triangle to a tragic and
untimely end.
Okay,
so it’s more than a little melodramatic.
Despite all this, I really liked “Moulin Rouge,” which (as other critics
have pointed out) is simultaneously one of the most creative and the most
derivative movies around. The story has
been done to death, and the audience can predict every twist and turn, yet the
movie’s extraordinary craftsmanship more than makes up for all that. McGregor and Kidman, surprisingly enough,
both turn out to have wonderful singing voices (McGregor in particular…now when
“Star Wars Episode II” opens next summer I’ll keep expecting him to burst into
song), and have something else which is missing from far too many screen
couples these days: real chemistry. The
production numbers in which they participate are a definite highlight; they’re
visually dazzling, musically inventive set pieces which frequently borrow
heavily—and bizarrely—from well-known pop songs (One man singing “Like A Virgin”
to another while waiters dance in the background? A group of artists, including Tolouse-Lautrec and Erik Satie,
trying to write “The Sound Of Music?”
Christian wooing Satine to the tune of “Love Lifts Us Up Where We
Belong?” What alternate dimension have
I wandered into?). Weirdly enough, it
all works somehow, in a way that “A Knight’s Tale”
could never hope to duplicate.
Meanwhile,
director Baz Luhrmann’s hyperkinetic camera work is both the movie’s greatest
strength and weakness. I hated his take
on “Romeo And Juliet” for that very reason; his enamoration with MTV-style
quick cuts and cinematography that can’t hold a shot for more than 3 seconds at
a time gave me motion sickness. It
works much better in this setting, where no one’s trying to give a soliloquy,
but at times (such as when we first enter the Moulin Rouge) the sensory
overload is just too much, leaving you with a nasty headache along with the
exact sense of disorientation he was surely going for. The rest of the visuals—art direction, sets,
costumes, makeup—are top-notch, make “Moulin Rouge” a visual treat almost
without equal, and already has my vote to take home a few Oscars come March
2002. My biggest problem was how long
the movie felt; it’s slightly more than 2½ hours but felt more like 3½, just
because the simple plot became so repetitive after awhile. (How many more times can he lose her and get
her back? Let’s just have our beautiful
tragedy, already.)
Those
of you who have a low tolerance for cheesiness should stay far away from “Moulin
Rouge.” It’s the kind of movie where
people speak in dumb pop lyrics, then burst into song when their emotions
become too much for them. But it all
rings so true in the end, because sometimes, that’s what love makes you
do. It has all the literary and moral
complexity of those old vaudeville shows with a cleft-chinned hero and a
mustache-twirling villain. But when it
comes down to it, none of that matters.
In Christian’s words (repeated almost ad nauseum throughout the film), “The
greatest gift you’ll ever learn is just to love, and be loved in return.” The Verdict: A movie for people who love
movies. Highly recommended. 4 out of 5.
Copyright (c) 2001 by Beth Kinderman. This is my original work, so please respect it.